Talk:Universal suffrage

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

48px} This article is part of WikiProject Human rights, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the Project page, where you can join the Project and contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the assessment scale.


Contents

[edit] Britain 1918 -universal suffrage or not?

Britain allowed women to vote in 1918, but only if they were over 30, whereas back then the age when men could vote was 21. Does this count as universal suffrage or not?

- Rich

[edit] Common Suffrage/Universal Suffrage

My knowledge of English, and history in the Anglo-Saxon world, might be the problem, but I get confused by the current definition of Universal suffrage.

I would, according to my prior knowledge and understanding, say that Common suffrage is the extension of voting privileges to all adults, without distinction to race, sex, belief or social status.

At the moment it's the race-issue which is stressed, which doesn't fit with my understanding. Sex and social status were at least as critical, as far as I know. But I must admit that this is grounded on my assembled reading on history, mostly in German, to some degree also in Danish, Swedish and French. I can not now point out any written sources to my support.

Maybe Universal suffrage is something else than Common suffrage?

-- Ruhrjung 16:22 May 5, 2003 (UTC)

From memory, Ruhrjung, "common suffrage" and "adult suffrage" mean the same thing. (But I haven't looked it up lately.) Both are normally used as synonyms for "universal suffrage", which is not strictly correct. The term we should use is "adult suffrage", as most (all?) places deny persons of less than a certain age the vote. (As an aside, I was unable to understand the justice in this when I was a child, and remain equally unable to understand it to this day. But there you are: the world is not always as we should like it to be.) Tannin.

I made a minor rewrite. -- Ruhrjung 15:47 May 7, 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Reserving seats for communal groups

This is something different.... Reserving seats for communal groups isn't particularly uncommon, and it's different from denying the right to vote.


Most societies today no longer maintain such provisions, but a few still do. For example, Fiji reserves a certain number of seats in its Parliament for each of its main ethnic groups; these provisions were adopted in order to discriminate against Indians in favour of ethnic Fijians. Pakistan reserves certain seats in parliament for voting by "frontier" tribes.

[edit] Date of Universal Suffrage in the USA

I have changed the date of universal suffrage in the USA to 1920, that being the date when women gained the right to vote. Let us recall that it was in 1870, five years after the abolition of slavery, that the constitution was amended to provide that neither federal nor state laws could deny the right to vote because of "race, color, or previous condition of servitude". If the fact that in some areas Blacks were systematically illegally denied the right to vote is to be cited as a reason to say that the USA did not grant universal suffrage until 1962, then the degree of enforcement of legal rights in other countries should be closely scrutinized as well. Michael Hardy 18:31, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Poll taxes were legal in the US under the 24th Amendment was ratified in 1964. If the 1870 amendment had covered all these points adequately, the 24th wouldn't have been necessary. So even in legal and constitutional terms, the US didn't have universal suffrage until the 1960s, let alone in actual practice. -JdSf 22:42, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Jim Crow laws didn't appear the day after the 15th amendments passed. What about reconstruction? I mean as long as we're nitpicking. After all, the list has examples that last less than a year even. And what about all the countries that make it hard as hell (if not impossible) for immigrants to get citizenship? That's not reflected in your list I bet. It seems like for some countries people look for every excuse to move them up the list while for others (that shall remain nameless) people look for every excuse to move them down. Just drop the list altogether it's worthless. Or here's a neat idea: give the opinions of actual sources, so it will actually help people's history research. 71.128.205.128 (talk) 13:54, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ambiguity in the listing

It's unclear as to whether the years given in the chronological listing are the ones when the countries granted Universal suffrage or when they revoked it. The opening line in the section is causing this confusion.

-- Sundar 04:14, Apr 15, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Candidacy

Does the term universal suffrage also include equal right to stand as a candidate in general elections? 130.232.129.242 15:14, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Switzerland -- 1990?

Who was it who couldn't vote in Switzwerland until 1990? --Jfruh 18:50, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

women Septentrionalis 20:33, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
Throughout the country? Or just in certain cantons? --Jfruh 21:02, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

This site (click on history) says throughout the country, but the date is 1971. Hmmm Septentrionalis 21:09, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Women's suffrage was introduced, by (male) referendum, for federal elections in 1971, but for cantonal elections, the last canton to introduce women's suffrage had to do so by supreme court order in 1990. I' ve updated the page accordingly. Sandstein 21:25, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] United States

The article defines universal suffrage as including "right to vote, without distinction as to social status". Until 1964, in some parts of the US, payment of a poll tax was a pre-condition of the right to vote. -- Naive cynic 20:29, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This is (in law) disenfranchisement of paupers. (Practice differed, as is stated.) This should be noted as a general exception, like felony disenfranchisement, but I suspect it is true of most of the early claims. Septentrionalis 02:47, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

In the United Kingdom in 1928 only adults above the age of 21 were allowed to vote. It wasn't until 1969 that it was reduced to 18.

I can't help but think it would be much more accurate to list the US as 1964, with 1920 in brackets, rather than 1920, with 1964 in brackets, as is currently the case. The UK should be listed as 1928, because 1918 only gave the vote to some women, not all. However, to make sense of all this information, it might be nice to create a table, with columns - column 1 would be country name, column 2 the year when universal male suffrage was granted, column 3 universal suffrage regardless of sex, column 4 would represent the lowering of the voting age from 20/21/25 to 18/19, and column 5 would represent the year when the voting age was lowered to 16/17. For some countries, column 3 would be the same as column 2, for some column 5 would be blank, and so on. I'm still not sure how we best fit a nation like the US into this type of table, though I doubt whether any reasonable person can claim that the US had universal suffrage in 1920. -JdSf 22:35, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Felon disenfranchisement

The article read: Most so-called "universal" suffrage systems still exclude some potential voters. For example, many jurisdictions deny the vote to various categories of convicted criminals or the mentally ill, and almost all jurisdictions deny the vote to non-citizen residents and citizens under the age of 18..

This is weasly, and possibly US-centric. I cannot find any souce claiming that most democracies have any exclusion within their universal suffrage. According to Human Rights Watch [1], it is very few, and only USA, Finland and New Zealand restrict convict's right to vote after the conclusion of their prison sentence. The USA is alone in barring voting for life.

I'm changing 'most' and 'many' here to 'some', until someone can provide some evidence that the majority of nations with universal suffrage restrict it in some way.

"right to vote, to all adults, without distinction as to race, sex, belief or social status."

According to the definition given, it can still be considered that the country is granting universal suffrage if some prisoners are not allowed to vote. If you need to mention that some countries don't grant full uni. suff. because they don't allow prisoners to vote, the definition would need to be changed. AFAIK, in the aforementioned countries people aren't sent to prison according to their race, sex, belief or social status (with the possible exception of some cases in USA/Guantanamo(etc.); and if murdering people for the sake of it isn't considered a 'belief').--85.49.225.8 23:37, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

NOTE the specific crime specified in the HRW link, 'Finland and New Zealand ..restrict the vote for several years after completion of sentence, but only in the case of persons convicted of buying or selling votes or of corrupt practices'.

[edit] United Kingdom

I'm not 100% sure, but I doubt that all voters in British overseas territories were granted the right to vote in 1928. For example, were all the people in India allowed to vote? (If someone who knows more about this could answer). For some reason, I'm just under the suspicion that not all of the few hundred million people were, in fact, allowed to vote in UK elections, even though in theory they were British, right? --85.49.225.8 23:37, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

The dominions and colonies were never part of the United Kingdom and so did not have representation in the UK Parliament, although people born there were British. Since there was no member of Parliament for Nairobi, a Kenyan and an Englishman in Nairobi would both equally not be able to vote in any UK election, as postal voting was only introduced in the 1980s (voters in the armed services were allowed to much earlier). However, a Kenyan/Australian resident in London would be able to elect the local MP, as they can still do to this day. Andrew Yong 12:04, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


1918 Act

Although the 1918 Act is now mainly remembered as giving women the vote, it was also the first acceptance of Universal Suffrage for men in the UK. It abolished the property and household qualifications which had, until then, disenfrachised a large part of the male working-class population. Estimates of the proportion of men eligible to vote prior to 1918 vary from only 60% to as low as 40%. This effectively barred socialist political parties from representation. (This parallels the use of poll-tax and other "social status" devices to restrict African-American representation in the US.)

The popular suffragist movement in the early 20th century in the UK was therefore for "votes for (working-class) men" as well as for "votes for women". The imposition of a lower age limit of 30 years on women in the 1918 Act was a compromise, which saved "face" for the UK Establishment by them not having to introduce full Univ. Suff. in one fell swoop. Accepting this compromise was a major point of contention between the main suffrage movement and the much smaller minority suffragette movement led by the Pankhursts. Full Universal Suffrage was then granted 10 years later in the Act of 1928.

So the UK experience is that property and social restrictions are at least as important as restrictions on the grounds of race or religion or sex as bars to Univ. Suff.

[User:Geoffrey Watson --220.237.74.218 13:14, 8 January 2006 (UTC)]

[edit] Northern Ireland

Does anyone know more about the Northern Ireland question. It's listed here as achieving universal suffrage in 1968. I know that the protestant controlled government in Belfast and the local councils practised discrimination against Catholics and altered boundaries of constituencies to create protestant majorities, but does this count as lacking universal suffrage? I also know that extra votes were given to commercial companies, with the implicit purpose of giving the wealthier protestants more votes. But does this mean there wasnt universal suffrage? Using the electoral system to discriminate against a particular group isn't the same as not giving them the vote, is it?

Any thoughts on this would be appreciated. Maybe we could change it to "discriminatory practises continued in Northern Ireland until 1968, despite universal suffrage".

seanjw 217.196.239.189 15:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pre-Nazi, under Nazi and post-Nazi Europe

"Germany -- 1918, Hungary -- 1918, Poland -- 1919" Hmm, this is odd. These countries, along with many others, denied some groups not only the voting right, but the citizenship and even the right to live. Please correct me if I am wrong, but from this line one can deduce that Germany, Hungary and Poland were shining lights of democracy since 1918-19. See Nuremberg Laws. ←Humus sapiens ну? 12:49, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

The social democrats were in power in Germany after the First World War. As in other European countries they have been the most venomous in order to get universal suffrage passed in the parliaments. Intangible 12:55, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
In light of Nuremberg Laws of 1935, it is totally wrong to imply any continuity since 1918. ←Humus sapiens ну? 00:50, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm inclined to revert at least part of your changes, since most countries that were occupied by the Nazis have seen no elections during that time. Intangible 01:24, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Please don't do blind-revert. Instead, why not have a couple of words on this important period. Thanks. ←Humus sapiens ну? 01:53, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Finland was not occupied by the Nazis, never having been at war with them; please don't clutter this page with nonsense error. Septentrionalis 06:26, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

This edit had the wrong dates or history for Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Rumania, and the Netherlands; and IIRC the Baltic States. It further makes the implicit claim that the Jews of Austria and Poland had full and effective suffrage in 1937, which seems doubtful. Septentrionalis 06:58, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Please improve it by fixing the dates instead of blindly reverting. As it stands now, the article is worse, because it implies that the suffrage was trouble-free since 1918. Also, even with your comment, I can't explain your reverts of Germany and Austria. Can you? ←Humus sapiens ну? 07:16, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Not simply a matter of dates, although the errors there made it preferable to start over from scratch. Hungary, Finland and Romania were all allies of the Reich. Septentrionalis 15:03, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Unsourced guesswork is not an asset to Wikipedia. Humus's first edit also stumbled across several serious questions, which would require sourced research before making any detailed edits.

  • Did the Nazis purport to change Dutch law, for example, or did they simply ignore it?
  • Did the Dutch Government-in-exile assent to this change? (Surely not.) If not, is it NPOV to consider it a change in the law of the Kingdom of the Netherlands?
  • Is it rational to imply a change in Austrian law, when Austria ceased to exist in 1936? Similar, more complex, questions apply to Poland and Czechoslovakia.
  • The network of authorities in Occupied Europe was also quite complex. German legislation did not automatically apply in all of them. The extent to which the Nazis obeyed their own laws is another question, requiring real citations of real sources.
  • Lastly, is it meaningful to speak of denial of suffrage under regimes which did not hold elections? Septentrionalis 15:03, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Universal male suffrage

Claims to have established universal male suffrage are off topic for the list presently appearing in this article. For this reason, I have not included the Pennsylvania constitution of 1776. (and, IIRC, Electoral Hesse). Septentrionalis 21:58, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

For the same reason, NJ should not be listed as having universal suffrage, since there was a property requirement. However, I will leave it alone for the time being b/c of the disclaimer that the property requirement may not have been enforced (I have no idea whether this is true). --Jsorens 16:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Much of the evidence on the actual exercise of female suffrage consists of charges and countercharges of electoral misconduct about this. Septentrionalis 20:22, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Why are such claims off-topic? There are basically three components of the movement from old-style restricted suffrage to modern universal suffrage: 1) dropping property requirements; 2) dropping gender requirements; and 3) dropping racial requirements. The article currently has very little information on when and where #1 was first done, despite it seeming perfectly on topic. --Delirium 10:15, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

-- Suggestion by Me --

I think the list should be in order of universal suffrage as in, when the vote was extended to all social classes, to all men, since there is a separate page on women's suffrage that can have this order on it. But it's useful to have a chronology of universal (male) suffrage as well. It's just as important, if not more. -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.67.137.101 (talk) 12:20, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Washington

In the United States, for example, suffrage for residents of the nation's capital, Washington, DC, is severely circumscribed.

What does this mean? If it means the complaint that the Disctrict of Columbia is not equally represented in Congress, it is true, but off-topic. If it means some restriction on voting in Washington, it needs much more detail. Septentrionalis 23:34, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Voting non-citizens

I tossed in the EU example today. It is currently unique, as far as I know, as Austrians, for example, are considered both Austrian and EU citizens. I hope I didn't confuse matters terribly, but thought it was important enough to include. 158.197.192.235 22:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chronology

Why is the chronology set according to women's suffrage, not universal suffrage when the article is about the latter? ie. If Canada didn't allow Status Indians to vote until 1960, why are they listed as having universal suffrage in 1918? - TheMightyQuill 19:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Universal Suffrage is a process, not a product
I'd go a step further in claiming that none of the listed systems have universal suffrage yet. I can not think of a single country in which first graders are allowed to vote. We can only speak about what percentage of the total number of residents of a region are allowed to vote in the local system. Truly universal suffrage is not reached until that quotient is 100%. (We could complicate matters further by saying that, in a US-occupied Iraq, if the US considered itself to have universal suffrage, Iraqis should be able to vote in US elections, as the hegemonic superpower exercises suzerainty over them; of course, try convincing someone in Des Moines that the people their government is shooting down should have a say in their system).
As such, I suppose some kind of table would be more appropriate: countries down the side, criteria across the top (gender, racial, non-land-holder equality, age 21+, age 18+, age 16+, age 0+, citizenship status, etc.) and where the column and row meet, the date when that group was granted suffrage. An additional column could be entered next to the country names showing the total suffrage quotient.
Of course, that takes work. samwaltz 23:37, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Universal suffrage -- New Zealand

The chronological entry for New Zealand as granting universal suffrage in 1993 is completely wrong. Adult males were granted the vote irrespective of property qualifications in 1879 and women in 1893. Therefore, depending on how this chronological list defines universal suffrage, New Zealand was the first country in the world to grant universal suffrage to adult men and women in 1893. If anyone else can let me know of another country that predates NZ in this I would be most grateful. john.wilson@parliament.govt.nz

New Zealand did indeed extend equal franchise to women in 1893, irrespective of property ownership, as men had achieved in 1879. However, the article states that there were inequalities with Maori franchise. Of this, I do not know. But if there were regulatory restrictions on the Maori right to vote, this would mean South Australia (at the time of equal legal status to NZ) was the first polity to grant universal suffrage. --Cyberjunkie 15:16, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The phrase "inequalities in the Maori franchise" presumably means the existence of separate Maori seats in Parliament, elected from a separate Maori roll. Initially the Maori franchise had a property qualification but I think this was removed in 1879. As to South Australia, were Aborigenes able to vote in SA before the federation? Lisiate 02:45, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Federation had no implications on the eligibility of voters in the States. Aboriginal men first gained the right to vote along with other men in the 1860'sIndigenous women followed in 1894 with other women. However, there is a school-of-thought that says they had the right to vote not because it was given to them, but because they were not specifically excluded from it. I'd dispute that.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 02:54, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

(Moz) I think he means 1960's, 100 years later (see Indigenous Australians). It does not sound plausible that at a time when hunting permits for black people were issued by the government and the stolen generations policy was in place that the government would also let aborigines vote. Why would non-citizens be granted a vote? From talking to black people in Australia it seems extremely unlikely that the vote, if technically available, was widely taken up. A number have mentioned to me their pleasure when after 1968 they first voted. See for example http://www.answers.com/topic/human-rights-in-australia

(Moz) As far as the "limited" franchise available to Maori men in NZ in the 1860s, this was on the same basis as it was available to non-Maori - they had to own property. The separate Maori seats have always had their own Maori electoral roll and the choice of which to sign on to was the individual voters. So I argue that it is not a limitation of the franchise.

Reading the above, it seems although this talk took place a couple of years ago that no one has yet forwarded a citation, or counter-argument, to support the inclusion of the claim about 'certain inequalities' existing, and that the phrase itself seems far too ambiguous anyway. Considering the importance of this to the article as a whole, since without this so far unsupported claim, the evidence presented would point to New Zealand being the first to introduce universal suffrage, then it should be removed and the article fixed to reflect this, or some citation provided.Number36 01:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

there are a few problems with this page.

South Australia was not a state in 1894. It was a self-governing British colony and more-or-less a sovereign nation. It did not become a 'state' until it joined the Australian Federation of 1901. So this needs to be corrected.

New Zealand is unequivocally the first nation in the world to grant universal suffrage and the arguments raised against this are spurious. Maori had the vote before all white males in NZ. Apallingly, as far as I recall, Australia did not give the vote to Aborigines until 1962 at Federal level and 1965 in Queensland. (see Galligan Citizens without rights)

194.170.173.14 07:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Well since no one has put anything forward to counter the above points, I've gone ahead and changed it, removed this; There is some debate with regard to which nation first installed complete democratic suffrage. New Zealand, Finland, France, Norway and several other countries can lay claim the title of first country with complete democratic suffrage (with the caveat of certain restrictions, etc.). Since there doesn't actually appear to be any debate, and if there is it should have its own section or at least have it outlined what the debate is somewhere on the page. And changed the New Zealand entry to reflect that it was the first nation to grant universal suffrage, I didn't remove the references to women being able to stand for parliament, though since suffrage relates to being able to vote, rather than be voted for, it's not directly related, I can see that it is a related issue. Number36 00:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] References

I don't see any references or few references in this page; should it be tag for no references Sodaplayer talk contributions ^_^ 23:37, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] France: universal suffrage in 1944? (What about Algeria?)

When the Fourth Republic started, Algeria was in fact part of the Republic, although not everyone was granted the right to vote. Shouldn't this be explained/added?Evilbu 15:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Was Algeria & other territories granted it the same way/time or was it when they got independent or later on? Also it was during the Provisional Government of the French Republic, not during the 4th Republic era. That-Vela-Fella 21:35, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Israel

The Wikipedia:Editing policy states: "Whatever you do, endeavour to preserve information." So let's improve on the disputed text. For example we could replace it by something more substantiated like so:

Only citizens can vote. Citizens are either born in Israel or the settlements or are immigrated Jews.[1] So non-Jews East of the West Bank barrier cannot vote. Israeli citizens in the same area can vote.

[Above proposal was by talk] —Preceding comment was added at 07:35, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
The right to vote is tied to citizenship in almost every country in the world. So what is special about that non-Israelis are not allowed to vote in Israel? Novidmarana (talk) 05:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I am not saying it's special or unjustified. I am substantiating information that was n the article. Your revertions goes against Wikipedia:Editing policy. Please improve the statements instead, for example by adding a competing perspective. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Winetype (talk • contribs) 07:28, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
It's not a "competing perspective", but just misleading. Only citizens can vote. That's the way it is in almost all countries. Mostly, citizens living abroad can vote too. The state of Israel does not include the West Bank, so the Palestinians can't and shouldn't vote for Israeli election. They vote for the PLA elections. okedem (talk) 08:22, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
The statement currently in the article is ludicriously wrong, it is not even worth commenting on this statement. To make the facts clear: Universal suffrage means that all citizens have the right to vote, regardless of race, sex etc. etc. Hence according to this definition used in this article there is universal suffrage in Israel. And residents living in Israel are not denied citizenship either. The occupied territories are not part of Israel, and hence their residents vote in the PLA elections, and not Israeli elections. The only exception is East Jerusalem, but in fact residents of East Jerusalem have the right to apply for Israel citizenship and have thus the right to vote. Even if they refuse Israeli citizenship they have the right to vote in municipal elections. Novidmarana (talk) 08:32, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

While we discuss the point, one should not suppress the information (as per the Editing policy). Here is an attempt at an NPOV wording:

Only citizens can vote. The right to vote is tied to citizenship as in most countries. In the case of Israel the citizens are either born in Israel or are immigrated Jews or of Jewish descent[2]. So non-Jews in the West Bank or East Jerusalem cannot vote. Israeli citizens in the same area can vote.

The above would replace the disputed wording ("many people living in the area are denied full citizenship", etc.) What do you think? Springwalk (talk) 08:42, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Disagree as this statement is still factually wrong. The West Bank is not part of Israel, and as I said above non-Jewish residents of East Jerusalem can apply for Israeli citizenship (and will get the Israeli citizenship as long as they swear allegiance to Israel and renounce all other citizenships, hardly different from most citizenship laws in other countries). And even if they refuse and keep whatever citizenship they have, they can still vote in municipal elections. Novidmarana (talk) 08:48, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for explaining. Here is a new text proposal:

Only citizens can vote. The right to vote is tied to citizenship as in most countries. In the case of Israel the citizens can reside in Israel or outside of it. They can notably reside in the West Bank or East Jerusalem. Non Israeli citizens in the same areas are not allowed to vote.

You may note that the above version avoids the detail of the municipal elections. Springwalk (talk) 10:35, 9 May 2008 (UTC)